The FCA’s statute of limitations has been a source of confusion and disagreement amongst the courts and litigants for years. The disagreement is focused primarily on whether a relator in a non-intervened case can take advantage of the three-year government knowledge/ten-year lookback provision under subsection (b)(2) or whether the relator is limited to the six-year limitation in subsection (b)(1). The majority of courts have held that the relator is bound by the latter provision, and cannot take advantage of the 10-year lookback period in cases where the government has declined to intervene. This split was recently expanded by the 11th Circuit, which found in U.S. ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, Inc., 887 F.3d 1081 (11th Cir. 2018) that a relator could take advantage of the longer statute of limitations period in subsection (b)(2) even where the government has declined to intervene.
Regulations, Compliance, & Enforcement
Trending Now
AI and ICT Compliance, Rare Earth Supply Chains, Small Business Fraud, Cyber Enforcement • Contractor Settles False Claim Allegations Over Cybersecurity Violations • Amid Rising Interest in Defense, IPOs Are an Increasingly Viable Exit Route for Investors • Just Having a ‘Human in the Loop’ Is Not AI Governance • Space Force Acquisition Nominee Faces Ethics Scrutiny over Defense Industry Ties
Eleventh Circuit Expands the Divide on the FCA’s Statute of Limitations
Track False Claims Act cases, audit trends, and compliance best practices with our Compliance & Enforcement newsletter, delivering up-to-the-minute intelligence Monday–Saturday — Subscribe here.